You do not have any favourites
News
-
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VACATIONAL AND SEASONAL RENTAL
24th February 2023 -
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VACATIONAL AND SEASONAL RENTAL
23rd February 2023 -
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VACATIONAL AND SEASONAL RENTAL
22nd February 2023 -
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN VACATIONAL AND SEASONAL RENTAL
21st February 2023 -
HOW THE CADASTRAL REFERENCE VALUE AFFECTS THE SALE OF THE HOME AFTER A DIVORCE OR INHERITANCE
20th February 2023 -
HOW THE CADASTRAL REFERENCE VALUE AFFECTS THE SALE OF THE HOME AFTER A DIVORCE OR INHERITANCE
19th February 2023 -
HOW THE CADASTRAL REFERENCE VALUE AFFECTS THE SALE OF THE HOME AFTER A DIVORCE OR INHERITANCE
18th February 2023 -
IT IS POSSIBLE TO RECTIFY THE EQUITY GAINS IN THE IRPF ONCE THE INCOME CAMPAIGN IS FINISHED
17th February 2023 -
Spain, fourth most attractive European country to invest in 2023, according to CBRE
16th February 2023 -
THE BANCO DE ESPAÑA ASKS THE BANKS NOT TO GENERATE FALSE EXPECTATIONS IN THEIR RECORD CAMPAIGNS
15th February 2023
THE DEADLINE TO CLAIM MORTGAGE EXPENSES REACHES THE CJEU
27th August 2021REAL ESTATE, NEXUS GROUP, INFORMA.
Contradictory Sentences
On October 28, 2017, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the lender, requesting the nullity of the aforementioned clause and the restitution of the amounts unduly paid as a result of its application.
After the opposition of the defendant, the judgment of first instance upheld the claim, declared the clause invalid and ordered the lender to pay the borrowers various amounts that they had paid as notary fees, registration of the property and management, plus your legal interests from the date consumers made such payments.
The Provincial Court, partially upholding the appeal filed by the bank, declared the action to claim the amounts paid for expenses prescribed and consequently acquitted the lender, without imposing costs in both instances.
The Provincial Court considered that the initial day for the calculation of the limitation period of the restitution action was the day on which the consumers had made the undue payments, in 1999, so the action was prescribed, as more 15 years old when they filed the lawsuit.
Finally, the plaintiffs filed a cassation appeal against the judgment of the Provincial Court, which is currently known to the High Court
info@nexusgrupo.com
0034 965727960